Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  when the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons was established;
	(2)  what the purpose and function is of the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons;
	(3)  what the budget contribution from his Department was for the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons under each budget heading in 2010-11;
	(4)  what plans he has for future levels of funding for the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons;
	(5)  how many staff of his Department work for the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts.

Andrew Robathan: The Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) was approved as a non-departmental public body in June 2009 and will be established soon. It is expected to be established later this year and it will continue the work previously undertaken by the Defence Science Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL).
	SACMILL’s purpose will be to provide: advice on the biophysical, biomechanical, pathological and clinical aspects of generic classes of Less Lethal Weapons; independent statements on the medical implications of use of specific Less Lethal Weapons; advice on the risk of injury from specific Less Lethal Weapons systems striking specific areas of the body in a format that will assist those responsible for developing policy and, separately, guidance to users, as well as operational users themselves in making tactical decisions.
	As an advisory non-departmental public body it will advise Ministers, but not employ staff or incur expenditure on its own account. The Surgeon General will be a member of the Executive Committee and will provide the secretariat functions for the committee from existing full-time HQ Surgeon General Staff. In addition, the committee may draw on the pool of expertise found within the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments for specific tasks.
	The total cost to the Department for DOMILL legacy work undertaken during the financial year 2010-11 was £39,355.56, principally for travel and subsistence costs. Work is currently under way to finalise the tasking arrangements for the financial year 2011-12; a similar level of expenditure as the previous year is expected.

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  when the Review Board for Government Contracts was established;
	(2)  what the purpose and function is of the Review Board for Government Contracts;
	(3)  what plans his Department has for future expenditure on the Review Board for Government Contracts;
	(4)  how many staff of his Department are employed by the Review Board for Government Contracts; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts;
	(5)  what his Department's budget for the Review Board for Government Contracts was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Board under each cost category in that period.

Andrew Robathan: The Review Board for Government Contracts was established in 1968.
	The primary purpose of the Review Board is regularly to review and maintain the Government Profit Formula used by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) when pricing single source work. A second function of the Review Board is to review the price of individual contracts which are referred to it under contract conditions, by one or both parties to the contract.
	The arrangements for single source pricing—which include the role of the Review Board—are currently the subject of an independent review by Lord Currie of Marylebone 26 January 2011, Official Report, House of Lords, column 11WS. Until such time as any changes in the current arrangements are accepted and implemented the Government has stated that they expect the Review Board to continue in its current role.
	Under the terms of the 1968 Agreement establishing the Review Board, its Secretariat is provided
	“by the engagement of a firm of professional accountants”.
	The requirement for secretariat services to the board is periodically advertised under competitive tender processes and is currently provided by Deloitte LLP.
	No members of MOD staff are permanently or temporarily employed by the Review Board for Government Contracts.
	In 2010-11 the Review Board incurred the following costs (figures include estimated accrued costs of £93,000 for March 2011):
	
		
			 Item £000 
			 Review Board—Chairman and Members (4) fees 43 
			 Travel and subsistence 18 
			 Secretariat costs (Deloitte LLP) to support the Board's 2011 Annual Review of the Government Profit Formula 207 
			 Sub-total 268 
			 Additional Secretariat costs (Deloitte LLP)—to support the Review Board consideration of the MOD contract referral 666 
			 Total 934 
		
	
	The additional costs of the board's consideration of the MOD contract referral were covered from within the Director General Defence Commercial overall budget provision.

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how many staff of his Department are assigned to the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts;
	(2)  what the (a) purpose and (b) functions are of the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee;
	(3)  on what date the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee was established;
	(4)  what plans his Department has for future expenditure on the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee;
	(5)  what his Department's budget for the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Committee under each cost category in that period.

Andrew Robathan: The Defence Nuclear Safety Committee (DNSC) is an advisory non-departmental public body and, as such, it does not employ staff on its own account. The Ministry of Defence provides the support functions for the body.
	The DNSC does not incur expenditure on its own account. Expenditure on fees and reimbursement of travel and subsistence for the financial year 2010-11 is estimated to be some £65,000. Future expenditure will be incurred against any agreed programme of specific advice.
	The DNSC's purpose and functions are to advise the Secretary of State for Defence on all safety matters pertaining to the naval nuclear propulsion plant and nuclear weapon systems, including related issues of design, development, manufacture, storage, in service support, handling, transport, operational training, support facilities and capabilities, the safety of workers and the public.
	The DNSC was established in 1999.

Departmental Public Bodies

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how many staff of his Department are engaged by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts;
	(2)  what plans his Department has for future expenditure on the Armed Forces Pay Review Body;
	(3)  what the (a) purpose and (b) functions are of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body;
	(4)  on what date the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was established;
	(5)  what his Department's budget for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Body under each cost category in that period.

Andrew Robathan: The Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) was established in 1971. Its purpose is to provide independent advice to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration and charges for members of the Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Crown. The Office of Manpower Economics (within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) provides the secretariat function. The 2011-12 Ministry of Defence budget for AFPRB activity is £88,920; the main items of expenditure are AFPRB member salaries (£66,750) and the production of the AFPRB Report (£8,572). The future funding for the body for the spending review period is expected to be in line for that for the current financial year.

Ex-servicemen: Radiation

Steve Brine: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to investigate the health effects of nuclear test veterans' exposure to ionising radiation on their offspring.

Andrew Robathan: The Ministry of Defence has placed a £75,000 contract to take forward a health needs audit of nuclear test veterans. The audit is in line with a wider NHS commitment to improve access and support in relation to the health needs of all veterans in the UK and will gather and record the direct experience and views of nuclear test veterans about their health and social care needs. Veterans have had the ability to input any concerns they have had including about their children during the study which is due to be completed in the summer.

Ex-servicemen: Radiation

Steve Brine: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has assessed the merits of extending the entitlement criteria applying to the war pension scheme to include radiation-linked diseases other than leukaemia.

Andrew Robathan: Published peer reviewed medical and scientific literature is routinely screened to ensure medically sound decisions under the war pensions scheme are made, and where appropriate entitlement policy and practice is amended. To date this scrutiny does not suggest any extension of entitlement criteria for nuclear test veterans is appropriate.

Foreign Relations

Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Tunisia, (ii) Libya, (iii) Kuwait and (iv) Saudi Arabia since January 2010;
	(2)  on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Syria, (ii) Yemen, (iii) Qatar and (iv) Egypt since January 2010;
	(3)  on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Lebanon, (ii) Israel, (iii) Nigeria and (iv) Uzbekistan since January 2010;
	(4)  on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Guinea, (ii) Turkey, (iii) United Arab Emirates and (iv) Chad since January 2010;
	(5)  on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Burundi, (ii) Kenya, (iii) Sudan and (iv) Zimbabwe since January 2010;
	(6)  on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from Bahrain since January 2008;
	(7)  on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Iraq, (ii) Ivory Coast, (iii) Liberia and (iv) Burkina Faso since January 2010.

Nick Harvey: Organised bilateral meetings have taken place between Ministry of Defence (MOD) Ministers and personnel with the countries specified in the following table, to 31 March 2011. Not all the information requested is available centrally.
	‘Senior visits’ refer to three and four-star officials and officers other than the Chief of the Defence Staff; ‘working visits’ are at lower levels. The occasion of a single visit may involve several engagements with a range of counterparts.
	This list excludes contacts by or with Defence Attachés and advisers; operational deployments; permanently deployed training and loan service personnel; training conducted in the UK or overseas; Directorate General Saudi Armed Forces Projects; contacts involving MOD personnel attached to international institutions, such as the UN; and contacts at multilateral events such as conferences, exhibitions and seminars.
	
		
			  Ministerial visits CDS visits Other senior visits Working visits Staff talks and strategic dialogues 
			 Tunisia — — — — — 
			 Libya To UK July 2010 — — Yes — 
			 Kuwait March 2010, February 2011; to UK October 2010 — — — May 2010 
			 Saudi Arabia September 2010, December 2010 — Yes — March 2010 
			 Syria — — — — — 
			 Yemen Presidential visit to UK August 2010 — Yes — — 
			 Qatar November 2010, March 2011; state visit to UK October 2010 — Yes — October 2010 
			 Egypt — — — — December 2010 
			 Lebanon To UK November 2010 — Yes — — 
			 Israel February 2011; to UK March 2011 — — — March 2010 
			 Nigeria — — — Yes — 
			 Uzbekistan — — — Yes — 
			 Afghanistan To UK January 2010 (1)— (1)— (1)— — 
			 Burma — — — — — 
			 Rwanda — February 2011 — — — 
			 Somalia — — — Yes — 
			 Guinea — — — — — 
			 Turkey February 2010, January 2011; to UK July 2010 — — Yes March 2010 
			 UAE State visit November 2010, June 2010, February, April 2011; to UK October 2010 — Yes Yes — 
			 Chad — — — — — 
			 Burundi — — — — — 
			 Kenya December 2010; to UK February 2011 February 2011 Yes Yes March 2011 
			 Sudan — — — Yes — 
			 Zimbabwe — — — — — 
			 Bahrain December 2008, December 2009, May 2010, November 2010, December 2010, January 2011, February 2011; to UK November 2008, November 2010 — Yes — May 2008, October 2009 
			 Iraq March 2010 — Yes Yes — 
			 Ivory Coast — — — — — 
			 Liberia — — — — — 
			 Burkina Faso — — — — — 
			 (1 )Multiple other ministerial, senior and working visits.

HMS Albion

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution (a) HMS Albion and (b) HMS Ocean has made to the Royal Navy's Response Group Task Force; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Harvey: The Royal Navy's Response Force Task Group is a new initiative announced in last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and Cougar 11 is its first deployment. HMS Albion and HMS Ocean as with all other units on this deployment have been developing, through force generation and collective training, contingent capability in their respective roles as the landing platform dock and landing platform helicopter.

Warships

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the composition of the Cougar deployment is; and what its mission is.

Nick Harvey: holding answer 9 May 2011
	Cougar is the 2011 deployment of the Response Force Task Group (RFTG) and is composed of HMS Albion, HMS Ocean, HMS Liverpool, HMS Sutherland, RFA Wave Knight, RFA Cardigan Bay, RFA Fort Rosalie and RFA Mounts Bay, together with embarked Royal Marine commandos and air assets comprising of five Lynx, seven Sea King and three Apache.
	This long planned exercise will develop the RFTG through force generation and collective training, to demonstrate contingent capability and to develop relationships with regional partners in support of Defence objectives.

Child Benefit

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants there are of child benefit in (a) the UK and (b) England.

David Gauke: At August 2010 there were 7,841,675 households in the UK that receive child benefit, of which 6,562,705 were in England.
	The latest information on the number of families receiving child benefit, by each parliamentary constituency, local authority and region is available in the HMRC snapshot publication ‘Child Benefit Statistics Geographical Analysis. August 2010’. This can be found at:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/child_benefit/chb-geog-aug10.pdf

Child Benefit

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants of child benefit in England are in receipt of that benefit in respect of (a) two, (b) three and (c) more than three children.

David Gauke: The following table shows the information requested:
	
		
			  Households in receipt of child benefit in England 
			 One child 3,051,980 
			 Two children 2,473,415 
			 Three children 761,550 
			 Four or more children 275,765 
			 Total 6,562,705 
			 Note: The figures have been independently rounded to the nearest five. This can lead to components not summing to totals as shown. 
		
	
	The latest information on the number of families receiving child benefit, by each parliamentary constituency, local authority and region is available in the HMRC snapshot publication ‘Child Benefit Statistics Geographical Analysis. August 2010’. This can be found at:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/child_benefit/chb-geog-aug10.pdf

Renewable Energy: Finance

Alan Whitehead: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to include the energy companies obligation in the cap on the impact of levy-funded support on energy bills described in paragraph 2.159 of The Plan for Growth.

Justine Greening: The new control framework for DECC levy-funded spending covers DECC's policies that entail levy-funded spending and that are classified by the Office of National Statistics as tax and spend for National Accounts purposes.
	If other DECC policies are classified by the Office of National Statistics as tax and spend and yet are deficit neutral then they will fall within the control framework. The energy company obligation will be included if it is classified as such.

Biofuels

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he made of the implications for human rights of the Clean Development Mechanism projects (a) aguan biogas recovery from palm oil mill effluent ponds and biogas utilisation and (b) lean biogas recovery from palm oil mill effluent ponds and biogas/biomass utilisation prior to authorising the purchase of credits from each project.

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the allegations in respect of these projects and has written to the CDM Executive Board to request a robust investigation. Of the two projects mentioned in recent representations by Biofuelswatch, the UK Government have issued only a Letter of Authorisation (LoA) in respect of the participation of EDF Trading Ltd in the Aguan Biogas Recovery project (CDM reference number 3197). The Lean Biogas Recovery project was not authorised by the UK.
	When assessing the Aguan project the standard procedures for dealing with applications seeking UK authorisation of companies participation in CDM projects were followed. These require the applicant to submit documentation including a letter of approval from the Honduran Government stating that the project contributes to sustainable development alongside a declaration that all documentation is correct. On the basis of these assurances, a letter of authorisation was issued to EDF Trading Ltd based on these assurances on 3 June 2009, prior to the events recounted in the allegations. We understand that EDF energy has since withdrawn from participation in the project.
	The final assessment of whether any CDM project is compliant with CDM rules lies with the CDM Executive Board, which is currently reviewing the status of the Aguan project.

Biofuels

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what representations he has received on the (a) augan biogas recovery from palm oil mill effluent ponds and biogas utilisation and (b) lean biogas recovery from palm oil mill effluent ponds and biogas/biomass utilisation project under the Clean Development Mechanism; and if he will make a statement.

Gregory Barker: The allegations of human rights abuses in connection with these two projects were first brought to the attention of the Secretary of State on 4 February 2011, when a letter of protest was received from a coalition of NGOs led by Biofuelwatch. This was followed in early April by a mass e-mail campaign.
	The allegations are plainly deplorable. Consequently the Secretary of State wrote to number of relevant organisations and responsible bodies, expressing his concern and requesting further information. These organisations included the Honduran authorities, the CDM Executive Board and the UK authorised project participant, EDF Trading Ltd. The Secretary of State also asked the Executive Board to assess whether the project meets CDM rules and to deal with the human rights allegations in so far as they are able.
	EDF Trading Ltd has recently announced that it is terminating its involvement in the two projects. Of the two projects EDF had received only a UK Letter of Authorisation (LoA) for one: the Aguan Biogas Recovery Project. Since the UK LoA was valid for use only by EDF, the termination of their involvement in the project effectively renders the letter defunct.

Energy Supply

Nicola Blackwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many instances his Department and its predecessors have recorded of transfers between energy suppliers made in error and without the customer's consent in each of the last five years.

Charles Hendry: DECC does not hold the information requested. To meet its principal duty to protect the interests of consumers, Ofgem collects data on a range of issues, including erroneous transfers. Whilst Ofgem does not publish this data it has statutory powers to take action to address market issues where it feels such action is required.
	Erroneous transfers of energy supplies most commonly occur because of administrative or data error on the part of the supplier. Since 2009, the big six suppliers have operated the “Peace of Mind Guarantee”, which sets out the process customers who have been affected by an erroneous transfer can expect to rectify the error. The Guarantee was designed to ensure mistakes are corrected quickly and with as little inconvenience to the consumer as possible.

Industrial Diseases: Compensation

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change 
	(1)  how much has been paid to each individual law firm from the Coal Health Compensation scheme in respect of cases of (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder to date;
	(2)  how much has been paid to each individual law firm under the Coal Health Compensation scheme in respect of claims for cases of (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from each constituency to date;
	(3)  how many claims for compensation for (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease under the Coal Health Compensation scheme have been received from each law firm to date.

Charles Hendry: Tables showing the number of claims received and costs paid as at December 2010 to claimants' solicitors handling claims under the Coal Health Compensation schemes for vibration white finger (VWF) and for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will be made available in the Libraries of the House, which provides breakdown by legal firm and the total amount paid to each firm.
	We do not have the costs for individual law firms broken down by parliamentary constituency.

Industrial Diseases: Compensation

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change 
	(1)  how many claims for vibration white finger under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme received (a) from North Durham constituency and (b) nationally have been processed to date;
	(2)  how many claims under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme for vibration white finger (a) received from North Durham constituency and (b) nationally are outstanding;
	(3)  how many claims under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received (a) from North Durham constituency and (b) nationally are outstanding;
	(4)  how many claims under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received (a) from North Durham constituency and (b) nationally have been processed to date.

Charles Hendry: The following table shows the number of scheme claims received and processed for North Durham and nationally for vibration white finger (VWF) and for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as at April 2011. There are no outstanding claims for North Durham.
	
		
			 Number 
			  Claims received North Durham Claims settled North Durham Total claims received Total claims settled Compensation claims outstanding 
			 COPD 6,587 6,587 591,768 591,738 (1)30 
			 VWF 642 642 169,611 (2)169,611 0 
			 Total 7,229 7,229 761,379 761,349 30 
			 (1) For the COPD scheme, there are only three claimants awaiting an offer or denial.  (2) All scheme VWF compensation claims have been settled. There are two claims of which solicitors costs are yet to be paid.

Oil: Refineries

Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the measures contained in Budget 2011 on the UK downstream oil industry, including refining.

Charles Hendry: HM Treasury is responsible for Budgetary policy and has confirmed that its sectoral analysis did not suggest a significant impact. DECC has not made a separate detailed assessment but our work suggests that the economics of oil refining should not be affected by taxation changes on North sea oil production. Businesses, including the downstream oil industry, have been supported by the 2% reduction in Corporation Tax this April.

Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the evidential basis was for the decision to cap expenditure on the feed-in tariff scheme as part of the comprehensive spending review; and for what reason the decision was taken.

Justine Greening: I have been asked to reply.
	Feed-in tariffs entail levy-funded spending and are classified by the Office of National Statistics as tax and spend for National Accounts purposes. They add to total tax and spending levels and impose costs on household and business energy bills. It is therefore important that these impacts are controlled.

Antisocial Behaviour

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations she has received on levels of antisocial behaviour; and if she will make a statement.

James Brokenshire: The Home Office receives numerous representations from members of the public who are concerned about the levels of antisocial behaviour in their area. That is why, on 7 February, we published the consultation document ‘More effective responses to antisocial behaviour’. It sets out the Government's proposals to streamline and improve the toolkit available to the police and their local partners to deal with antisocial behaviour, as a key part of wider reforms that will make agencies more accountable to the public for the way they respond to local crime and policing priorities. The consultation runs until 17 May.

Asylum

Rob Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to the public purse was of (a) providing accommodation and support to asylum seekers, (b) processing asylum applications and (c) deporting unsuccessful asylum seekers in each of the last three years.

Damian Green: The cost of providing accommodation and support to asylum seekers in each of the last three years is given in the following table. It is not possible to provide the cost of processing asylum applications without incurring disproportionate cost.
	It is also not possible to provide the cost of deporting asylum seekers as the UK Border Agency does not record these costs separately. The National Audit Office report ‘Management of Asylum Applications by the UK Border Agency’, published on 23 January 2009 and available to view at:
	http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/management_of_asylum_appl.aspx
	provides a range of upper- and lower-end cost estimates for people who are detained or removed in different circumstances (for example, for a single undetained adult who is removed after exhausting his/her appeal rights, the process will cost between £7,900 and £17,000 excluding accommodation and support costs, and between £12,000 and £25,600 including accommodation and support costs). A copy of this report is available in the House Library.
	
		
			 Cost of accommodation and support for asylum-seekers 
			  2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 
			 Initial accommodation 19.0 14.9 8.5 
			 Dispersed accommodation 127.8 123.0 99.7 
			 Section 4 support 90.8 101.9 55.7 
			 Cash support 69.0 68.1 55.6 
			 Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking children 142.1 150.7 114.9 
			 One-Stop Service — 10.1 10.2 
			 Wraparound — — 4.1 
			 Total 448.7 468.7 348.7 
			 Note: The figures for 2010-11 are unaudited and are subject to possible adjustment. Figures-for 2008-09 and 2009-10 are taken from the audited accounts of the UK Border Agency.

Asylum

Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2011, Official Report, column 312W, on asylum, in which month of 2011 the UK Border Agency expects to conclude the backlog of legacy asylum claims; and what instructions have been issued to UK Border Agency staff on how to respond to enquiries by claimants on the conclusion of their claims.

Damian Green: holding answer 3 May 2011
	The UK Border Agency provides regular updates on performance of the “legacy” cases, including a breakdown into grants, removals and “other” cases such as duplicates or errors, to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
	On 2 March, the Agency reported to the Home Affairs Select Committee that it had concluded over 403,000 cases as at 31 January 2011.
	The UK Border Agency has completed its review of all the outstanding “legacy” cases. A small unit has been set up in the North West region. This will continue concluding those cases that have been reviewed but not concluded. They will also monitor the controlled archive and take forward any cases that should come to light. Claimants have details of the case team dealing with their application. To improve the service that the UK Border Agency provides whilst minimising the impact of calls on productivity, claimants can contact the case team in writing or via a dedicated e-mail inbox with enquiries relating to their claims.

Asylum

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people (a) applied for asylum, (b) were granted asylum on initial decision, (c) were granted exceptional leave to remain on initial decision, (d) were granted humanitarian protection on initial decision, (e) were granted discretionary leave to remain on initial decision, (f) were refused either asylum, exceptional leave to remain, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain on initial decision, (g) appealed their initial decision, (h) were granted asylum on appeal, (i) were granted some form of protection after appeal, (j) were refused asylum or other protection after appeal, (k) were the subject of enforced removals, (l) were the subject of notified voluntary departures, (m) were the subject of assisted voluntary returns and (n) were former asylum seekers who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities in each year from 1997 to 2010.

Damian Green: holding answer 9 May 2011
	The number of people who applied for asylum, were granted asylum on initial decision, were granted exceptional leave to remain on initial decision, were granted humanitarian protection on initial decision, were granted discretionary leave to remain on initial decision, were refused asylum, exceptional leave to remain, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain on initial decision—(a) to (f)—is provided in the following table:
	
		
			 Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions  (1,)  ()  (2)   1997 to 2010 
			 Number of principal applicants 
			   Initial decisions 
			    Cases considered under normal procedures 
			   Total initial decisions     Refusals 
			  Total applications  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain Not recognised as a refugee but granted humanitarian protection Not recognised as a refugee but granted discretionary leave Total refused 
			 1997 32,500 36,045 3,985 3,115 n/a n/a 28,945 
		
	
	
		
			 199S 46,015 31,570 5,345 3,910 n/a n/a 22,315 
			 1999 71,160 33,720 7,815 2,465 n/a n/a 11,025 
			 2000 80,315 109,205 10,375 11,495 n/a n/a 75,680 
			 2001 71,025 120,950 11,450 20,190 n/a n/a 89,310 
			 2002 84,130 83,540 8,270 20,135 n/a n/a 55,130 
			 2003 49,405 64,940 3,865 3,975 140 3,095 53,865 
			 2004 33,960 46,020 1,565 n/a 160 3,835 40,465 
			 2005 25,710 27,395 1,940 n/a 120 2,675 22,655 
			 2005 23,610 20,930 2,170 n/a 55 2,245 16,460 
			 2007 23,430 21,775 3,545 n/a 125 2,075 16,030 
			 2008 25,930 19,400 3,725 n/a 95 2,075 13,505 
			 2009(3) 24,485 24,285 4,190 n/a 95 2,460 17,545 
			 2010(3) 17,790 20,645 3,480 n/a 90 1,620 15,455 
			 n/a = not applicable (1) Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five ( * = one or two). Figures may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. (2) Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions. (3) Provisional figures. 
		
	
	The number of people who appealed their decision, were allowed at appeal, were dismissed at appeal—(g) to (j)—is provided in the following table. Information on whether the applicant was granted asylum or some other form of protection at appeal is unavailable and would be available only on examination of individual records at disproportionate costs.
	
		
			 Asylum appeals received and determined at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal/First-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber  (1, )  (2)  , excluding dependants, 1997 to 2010 
			 Number principal applicants 
			    Appeals determined  (3) 
			  Appeals by the Home Office  (4) Appeals received by the IAA/AIT  (5) Total determined  (5) Total allowed  (9) Total dismissed  (9) Total withdrawn  (6)  (,)  (9) 
			 1997 20,950 22,385 21,090 1,180 18,145 1,720 
			 1998 14,320 15,440 25,320 2,355 21,195 1,770 
			 1999 6,615 7,775 19,460 5,280 11,135 3,050 
			 2000 46,190 28,935 19,395 3,340 15,580 475 
			 2001 74,365 47,905 43,415 8,155 34,440 825 
			 2002 51,695 64,125 64,405 13,875 48,845 1,685 
			 2003 46,130 70,575 81,725 16,070 63,810 1,845 
			 2004 35,110 47,000 55,975 10,845 43,760 1,370 
			 2005 4,935 24,835 33,440 5,605 26,555 1,285 
			 2006 n/a 14,920 15,955 3,540 11,595 820 
			 2007 n/a 14,060 14,945 3,385 10,735 825 
			 2008 n/a 10,660 10,720 2,475 7,585 650 
			 2009(7) n/a 15,420 14,610 4,150 9,675 780 
			 2010(7,8) n/a 16,170 17,930 4,835 12,090 1,010 
			 n/a = not applicable (1) Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five (— = 0; * = one or two) and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. (2) The Tribunals Service Immigration and Asylum (TSIA), consisting of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTTIAC and UTIAC) replaced the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) on 15 February 2010. All figures for appeals determined are cases dealt with by immigration judges at the AIT or FTTIAC. (3) All figures for appeals determined are cases dean with by adjudicators/judges at the IAA or AIT. (4) Data for 2000 are based on manual counts of data received in the Appeals Support Section of the Home Office. Some cases were received elsewhere in the Home Office before being forwarded to ASS and so may be counted at a later date than when they arrived in the Home Office. Figures for 1997 to March 2005 are based on Immigration and Nationality Directorate electronic sources. From April 2005 appeals are lodged directly with the AIT. (5) Based on information supplied by the Ministry of Justice. ‘Appeals received’ data include some cases lodged at the Home Office and transferred to the AIT/FTTIAC. The data also include a small number of cases initially flagged as being potentially invalid or out of time for which the papers were examined by an immigration judge and determined to be valid and/or in-time. These cases then proceed through the appeal system. (6) Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as those withdrawn by the appellant. (7) Provisional figures. (8) Provisional management information supplied by the Ministry of Justice. (9) Estimated figures (to March 2005). Sources: Prior to April 2005: Presenting Officers Unit, Home Office; from April 2005: Ministry of Justice, Determinations do not necessarily relate to appeals received in the same period. 
		
	
	The number of removals and voluntary departures from the UK of principal asylum applicants, broken down by type of departure—(k) to (n)—is provided in the following table. It is not possible to provide the exact split requested; in line with published statistics, ‘enforced removals’ and ‘notified voluntary departures’ have been grouped together.
	
		
			 Removals and voluntary departures  (1,2 )  of principal asylum cases, by type, 1997 to 2010 
			 Number of departures  (3) 
			  Enforced removals and notified voluntary departures  (4,5) Assisted voluntary returns  (6) Other voluntary departures  (7) Total principal asylum cases 
			 1997 7,165 n/a n/a 7,165 
			 1998 6,990 n/a n/a 6,990 
			 1999 7,615 50 n/a 7,665 
			 2000 8,430 550 n/a 8,980 
			 2001 8,305 980 n/a 9,285 
			 2002 9,845 895 n/a 10,740 
			 2003 11,250 1,755 n/a 13,005 
			 2004 10,300 2,300 n/a 12,595 
			 2005 10,355 2,905 465 13,730 
			 2006 10,330 4,630 1,370 16,330 
			 2007 8,140 2,540 2,025 12,705 
			 2008 7,290 2,455 2,300 12,040 
			 2009(8) 6,420 2,830 1,685 10,935 
			 2010(8) 6,120 2,480 770 9,375 
			 n/a = not applicable (1 )Figures are rounded to the nearest five and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. (2) Figures exclude dependants. (3) Removals and voluntary departures recorded on the system as at the dates on which the data extracts were taken. (4) Due to a reclassification of removal categories, figures include asylum removals which have been performed by enforcement officers using port powers of removal and a small number of cases dealt with at juxtaposed controls. (5) Since October 2006, figures include persons leaving under facilitated return schemes. (6) Since January 1999, persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes run by the International Organization for Migration. May include some cases leaving under the Assisted Voluntary Return for Irregular Migrants Programme (since December 2004) and some cases where enforcement action had been initiated. (7) Since January 2005, persons who it has been established left the UK without informing the immigration authorities. (8 )Provisional figures. Figures will under record due to data cleansing and data matching exercises that take place after the extracts are taken. 
		
	
	Further information on asylum is available from the Control of Immigration publications available in the Library of the House and the Home Office Science website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics

Bigamy

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences of bigamy were recorded in each year since 2007; and what proportion of such offences resulted in (a) court proceedings against suspected perpetrators, (b) convictions and (c) sanction detections.

Nick Herbert: The information is not available in the form requested.
	Figures for the number of offences of bigamy recorded by the police and the number detected by means of a sanction detection are given in the table. Statistics on court proceedings, including convictions, are a matter for the Ministry of Justice.
	Recorded crime and court proceedings statistics are recorded in quite different ways. Recorded crime data is provided on a financial year basis and counts offences whereas court proceedings data are on a calendar year basis and count offenders. Therefore, these two separate data-sets are not directly comparable.
	
		
			 Offences of bigamy recorded by the police and detected by means of a sanction detection  (1)  —2007-08 to 2009-10 
			  Number of offences Number of sanction detections Percentage detected by means of a sanction detection 
			 2007-08 74 33 45 
			 2008-09 64 40 63 
			 2009-10 60 39 65 
			 (1) Detection rates are a ratio of crimes detected in a period to crimes recorded in a period. They are not based on tracking whether individual crimes recorded in a period have eventually been detected.